Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    August 23, 2013 1:30pm-2:01pm PDT

1:30 pm
said they're a union contractor, it's the same that they are -- their employees are represented seiu and then would be, therefore, subject to the same salary and benefits requirements. and that's correct, right? >> i am presuming so, yes. >> well, in the future it would be nice to know that specifically, too. thank you. >> and i would say, commissioner, if we were to find that they were not -- they said they were signatory and they're not, that would be a significant breach of their bid. we would find them nonresponsive and throw them [speaker not understood]. >> i'm just curious they would have a new contractor coming in and what would happen to our employees that are currently under the current contract. >> good question.
1:31 pm
there are really only three people who are stationed at sites for long intervals. the rest of our security contract is generally roving or as needed. and those are two people who are here and then polipa who is at 135 van ness, both -- all of them are wonderful and dearly beloved. presuming they do not want to change companies. we will have new people at those desks. there have been some talk of finding a way to potentially hire one or more of them within the district and one of them now is already a district employee, a t-10 who works at the daytime at other school sites. so, there are other options for them within the district should the district choose to do that. but they know the situation. we've given them lots of notice. we love them and we're trying to be very fair.
1:32 pm
>> is that something that we intend to help try to facilitate? so, you say it's up to the district. >> it's also up to them, commissioner. i actually don't -- i've had the conversation once with johnny outside. i actually don't know what his life and career plans are and whether being a full-time district employee is something he's even interested in. you know, for val this is a nighttime job that augments his regular day job. and, of course, [speaker not understood] 135 van ness for a decade. so, it's going to be hard on everybody. >> thank you. dr. murase. >> we're being asked today to approve a one-year contract that is renewable for -- on a yearly basis for a maximum of four years. so, that in the event that there are many complaints that people are not being paid, that there are violations of the contract, we're talking about a
1:33 pm
one year -- we're not locked in. >> if that were to happen and we should decide that we are not at all content with the service of this company, i would not hesitate to put this contract back out to bid now that we actually have a really good proposal timely finally written. that option is available to us and i think we should take it if needed. >> commissioner haney. >> i know you mentioned this, but, so, what exactly would happen if we did not approve this contract tonight? would you go to the next lowest bidder or would you put the contract back out to bid? what exactly would happen? >> if the contract was not approved tonight -- well, there are certain mechanisms you would have to take if you chose to continue this, then obviously we would continue further discussion. if you chose to not award this contract, then i would have to confer with legal counsel
1:34 pm
whether we have the option of going to the next responsible bidder or we choose to reject all bids and bid again. >> it's my understanding that, that rejection of this particular bid by the governing board would constitute the necessity to reject all bids and put the project back out to bid. >> okay. and what -- one of the driving mechanisms here is securitas has raised their rates to a fairly high level. they have us on a month-to-month basis. so, their rates have gone up again and we would like to secure a contract at a rate that we know. should that happen tonight and would go out to bid, we'd be looking at another two or three months before we came back to the board, awarded the contract, signed the contract, and had it in place. but currently we have a security provider. everything is fine, you know,
1:35 pm
things are being taken care of and the district -- it's not like we have a lapse of service. we would prefer to have a long-term vendor having been reminded that securitas is actually the one who canceled their contract with us. >> [speaker not understood]. it does seem like it came out of nowhere. i wasn't ready to have this conversation at this level. but i think about the last process, and i think that one sort of came out of nowhere for us, at least for me as a board commissioner. and just as looking at this and the difference in dollar amounts -- and i'm more focusing on securitaz and the
1:36 pm
bid that you're presenting to us for a vote tonight. that sort of raises a flag for me already and i just feel like a head up would have been so much more helpful so i could do my due diligence and then ask questions that i don't have an opportunity to ask here because -- and i think many of these board members were here last time so i can't imagine our feeling or how we feel about certain things has changed radically. ~ this is something that is common knowledge about us, that we highly value our labor partnership and the staff and in particular to commissioner mendoza's point, the staff that we see every day. so, the superintendent, mr. golden, i think that raises the level for us to know ahead of time. commissioners, be aware, this is transitioning for you and here's the information. i would just appreciate that.
1:37 pm
>> yes, commissioner maufas, i'll answer for us. contracts do expire all the time and there are -- [multiple voices] >> [speaker not understood], i get it. [inaudible]. that party completely get. sorry. >> there are bid processes that are initiated all the time as well. so, your desire for particular contracts that affect particular individuals is duly noted. and what we'll do is we'll make sure that we're having those conversations with the board to give you the heads up. absolutely. >> thank you so much. excuse the interruption. >> one final comment i just wanted to add, commissioner, to your comment. ~ wanted to add there are three bidders from a percentage point who are very close. and then there's one who is way out in sort of left field. and that's how we look at a
1:38 pm
construction contract. if there are three people that are sort of close, you get a good idea that the number is not so bad. and there's usually always one that's incredibly lower or incredibly high. and actually in this case the incredibly low number was the one that was nonresponsive and part of it is they were out of l.a. and their references didn't check and we deemed them nonresponsive. we didn't think they could fulfill the terms of the contract. so, to answer that question, i actually think the three numbers that are sort of around a million seem to justify that that's a good number. like i said, all indications are so far due diligence says this is a responsive bid and under the public contract code we have an obligation to bring the responsive bid forward. and i agree with commissioner
1:39 pm
murase [speaker not understood]. >> vice president fewer. >> yes, i'm seeing here in the materials that under the bid results that abc security, it's listed at 9 79,000 and change and the amount we're rewarding them is 86 4,000. so, that is $150,000 actually, that 86 4 difference from the second highest bidder. so, i think that it does -- it does bring into question sort of that how can you operate -- i mean, the bid difference is 150,000. >> so, let me explain. when we put forth the bid, we set criteria because we never know how much our security annual costs will be. in some ways it depends on how contentious our board meetings are, what are our security needs across the district, right.
1:40 pm
so, we gave them a formula and that formula said, we want you to make these calculations a three-quarter, a full-time guard at 555 franklin, full time guard at van ness. roving patrols assume this many hours. give us a price. that's the only way we can have what we call a base bid. everybody puts their rates, they put their overhead, their profit and they give us a price. the number that's here in the contract is the budget number that mr. lee and staff have loaded into our budget. so, even though the bid was this number, the contract award is for the amount that we budgeted, but we base the bid award based on a calculation that everybody competed equally for. so, that's why one is higher. does that make sense? >> actually, no because are you then telling me that we went to
1:41 pm
the second highest bidder that we'd still be paying, and their bid was over a million dollars, that we would still pay them 86 4 -- >> because everybody has a different rate calculation in how they figure their rates. so, we have to have a basis to award. but our security needs are not based on a fixed contract. they're based on unit prices to perform tasks and we budgeted an amount that we have averaged over the last three or four or five years. but in order to decide what to bid on, we had to give them some really tight criteria, so, everybody is bidding equally on the same playing field. if, in fact, their contract exceeds $800,000, then we have more security needs than we anticipated. one, we'd have to go back to
1:42 pm
the board and amend their contract. but two, we would go back to the board and amend it at their agreed upon rates, which are presumably lower than the other three bidders or they wouldn't have been the lowest bidder. okay. >> thank you. >> okay. mr. haney, do i see your finger hovering over the button? [laughter] >> yes, yes. now that you caught me, i might as well -- so, in your experience, i understand that we sort of put out the different criteria that they need to meet. but in your experience if there's a bid that comes in that much lower than the others and sort of read in combination with the concerns around the lack of a commitment to some of the collective bargaining obligations from the folks who spoke earlier, is it -- would it be a concern or would it be even a suspicion that part of it is that, they might have
1:43 pm
lower wages or lower benefits, is that how they would sort of get to a lower bid, especially that degree of a lower bid? >> it's possible. what my suspicion is is that securitaz is a multinational -- one of the five largest security companies in the world with an incredibly large overhead. and the company that we're about to hire is a local bay area -- i think they have some branches in other places. they're not nearly of the scale or magnitude of securitaz. how a company computes its overhead, its profit, where it has its home headquarters, what their insurance and bonding capacity is all figures into this rate. so, i have not been privy to the magic room where they all add up these numbers. what it tells me is at least three of these people figure the rates are about the same.
1:44 pm
and one of them, threw a very high number at us, i think, hoping at the end of the day because they've been here 12 years, they may still be the only person on the playing field. and there were people that put in a better price. the last time we put this out to bid, all of the other bidders dropped off on their own volition and securitaz was standing alone on the playing field. and they've given us good service until they, at their own volition, canceled their own contract. so, right now, as i said, i have no reason to believe this is a non-- no grounds to throw them off as a nonresponsive bid. and, of course, the board is free to make their determination. >> thank you, mr. golden. seeing no other lights, i'm going to call the question.
1:45 pm
roll call, please, [speaker not understood]. >> thank you. mr. logan? >> yes. >> ms. fewer? >> yes. >> mr. haney? >> no. >> ms. maufas? >> no. >> ms. mendoza? >> yes. >> dr. murase? >> aye. >> ms. wynns? >> aye. >> and ms. norton? >> yes. >> five ayes. >> okay, thank you. we will now move on to item q, superintendent's proposal for first reading. this is the adoption of a project labor agreement between the san francisco unified school district and the san francisco building and construction trades council for projects within the prop a facility bond program. may i hear a motion and second, please? >> so moved. >> second. >> thank you. we will allow five minutes total of public testimony for this item. i have three public speakers, which means that each of you will have 90 seconds.
1:46 pm
so, i'm going to call your name and you may line up at the podium. nicole garing. michael terio, and eddy on. 90 seconds. all right. shall we do two minutes each? it says i'm supposed to allow 5 minutes of total testimony. we'll do two minutes. i'll change my own rule. we'll have 2 minutes each. good evening, superintendent, president norton, and commissioners. nicole garing with associated buildings and contractors. we are a nonprofit construction trade association with members that work throughout the bay area that do commercial industrial and public works construction, and we operate state approved apprenticeship programs in several trades. and at this point we are here this evening to oppose your proposed project labor agreement for $53 1 million
1:47 pm
worth construction because we believe you are not ensuring the highest level of quality getting the best qualified contractors at the best price. and we believe these agreements restrict competition, increase costs for the taxpayer and discriminate against nonunion employees and place merit shop contractors at a significant disadvantage. we believe in increasing opportunities and access for all workers regardless of their affiliation as you would increase access to all students here in your school district. while we disagree with the policy justifications, we also believe that your apprentice -- proposed apprenticeship language is in violation of the labor code 17 77.5. you need to contractors who are participating in approved apprenticeship program who do not receive the sufficient number of apprentices must request for all apprenticeship programs in the area and that includes union and nonunion apprenticeship programs and we believe that this is discrimination and it runs contrary to high voltage wire works incorporated versus the city of san jose, a simple
1:48 pm
solution would be to strike the word joint and wherever it's placed in your apprenticeship article 11 and replace that word with state approved. i only have 90 seconds but i would invite you to tour our apprenticeship training facility in venture a. we're [speaker not understood] at 10:00 a.m. and you can see our apprentices in action. thank you. good evening, commissioners. very briefly, eddy on. excuse me, [speaker not understood] first would like to thank you for your efforts in putting forward this resolution that led to the local hiring contracting and contracting parole visions. and to their credit, the building trades have stepped up and done enormously for community. and the one thing that we would ask is maybe revisiting the $1 million threshold that's part of the pla right now but otherwise would urge you to move forward and in the meantime would like to seed the rest of the of my time to
1:49 pm
michael terio of the building trades. thank you. commissioners, michael terio san francisco building and construction trades could you bev. thank youver for considering this pla. i think it was a pleasure dealing with your staff in this regard cu. ~ [speaker not understood]. that being said, i will ask there was one item which we did not come to agreement and that was the question of the threshold. this board -- your staff did put into the document you're considering the million dollar threshold this board instructed them to put in. we, however, are asking that you reconsider that and that you eliminate the threshold and have all work on the bond measure covered under the pla. let me make three points in that regard. first of all, the intention of this pla in large degree on this board's part is to have local hire. and there is no local hire on
1:50 pm
that bond measure work except under the pla. that much is clear from council's representations to you before. so, if you want absolute coverage of local hire all up and down, your bond measure work, it has to be covered under the pla. second, most of you were on the board a few months ago when i sent around the matrix that demonstrated there is no exclusion of nonunion contractors under the pla from performance of the last pla. and that there was substantial participation of minority contractors under the pla from the performance of the last pla. so, if the intention is to allow more participation in bond measure work for nonunion and for minority contractors, you get that already with the pla in place and there is no necessity, then, for a threshold to achieve that. third, there is actually a provision thanks to the -- your acceptance of a recommendation by staff that rewards local contractors who have a history
1:51 pm
of employing local workers. and they would actually then have an advantage in bidding on work under this pla. so, if the intention of the threshold is to protect that class of contractor, that threshold is again unnecessary. we actually reward them under the pla. thank you. >> thank you, mr. terio . so, this resolution is going to be held over for action at the august 27th regular meeting of the board. it will not go through committee. now i would like to hear a motion and a second on suspension of the rules to hear 138-13 sp2 to accept the voluntary closure by envision education, incorporated of its metropolitan arts and technology charter school, effective august 1st, 2013. roll call, please, ms. [speaker not understood]. yes, difficult need a motion. thank you. >> second. >> thank you. i heard motion and i just went right on. thank you for the second, vice president fewer.
1:52 pm
roll call please ms. castro. >> thank you. mr. logan? >> yes. >> ms. fewer? >> yes. >> mr. haney? >> yes. >> ms. maufas? >> yes. >> ms. mendoza? >> yes. >> dr. murase? >> aye. >> ms. wynns? >> aye. >> thank you. [speaker not understood]? >> yes. >> 7 ayes. >> now i'd hear a motion for 138-13 sp2 which is the resolution to accept the voluntary closure by envision of metropolitan arts and technology charter school effective august 1st, 2013. motion and a second. >> moved. >> second. >> thank you. may you please read the recommendation, mr. davis? >> yes, i will, thank you, president norton. superintendent's proposal 138-13 sp2 accept the voluntary closure by envision education, incorporated, of its metropolitan arts & technology
1:53 pm
charter school effective august 1st 2013 whereas the california legislature has charged school boards with reviewing and acting upon petitions for the establishment of charter schools and conducting oversight of charter schools and whereas in accordance with california education code sections 47 605 and 47 6 07, the district approved the envision and education incorporated petition for the establishment of the charter school which began operations in san francisco on august 25th, 2005, and whereas on september 13th, 2011, the district approved the charter schools renewal for a five-year period ending june 30, 2017 and whereas envision now has ceased operations of the charter school and intedthxctionv to voluntarily surrender its charter and otherwise forfeits all rights and privileges granted under that charter ~ and whereas on july 25th, 2013 unction the governing board of the charter school informed the district that the charter
1:54 pm
school was voluntarily closing and ceasing operations and a copy of this correspondence is attached hereto. the superintendent requests that the board of education take the following action. one, the board of education here by accepts the envision education incorporated voluntary closure of metropolitan arts & technology charter school. two, in light of the charter school's voluntary closure of its charter and its cessation of operations, the charter is here by terminated effective august 1st, 2013. three, the board of education directs the superintendent to inform the california department of education of this board action on or before august 23rd, 2013. and 4, the board of education directs the superintendent to ensure the charter school's governing board abide by all provisions as outlined in education code sections 47 605 and 47 6 07. relating to the closure and wind up of the charter school's affairs.
1:55 pm
>> thank you, mr. davis. ~ i have no public speakers signed up for this item. are there any comments from the board or superintendent? any comments from the board or superintendent? no, all right. roll call, please [speaker not understood]. >> i do have a question. so, the students that were at metro and presumably thought they were going back at the beginning thev school year, what's happened to them? >> so, back in may when envision made the decision that they needed to cease operations at metropolitan arts & tech, they met with their school community on three separate occasions, informed them of that fact, handed out applications for sfusd schools. they then passed those along to me. i provided those to darlene lim in the enroll em placement center and she worked with
1:56 pm
those families to place them. i'm sorry. >> essentially, this was may. so, they were actually well passed the assignment process and were already in second round by then? >> that's correct. >> that was somewhat irresponsible for them. >> i thought that i had read in one of your memos, mr. davis, they were also offered enrollment at the city arts & tech as well. >> that is correct. yeah, i left that part out. they were offered enrollment at city arts & tech or to go to another sfusd school. >> so, do we know where the students that were at metro are and did many of them go to city arts & tech? or where are they? >> they are expecting that about 80 students will transfer over to city arts & tech. they had about 120 when they closed. >> and do we know where the
1:57 pm
others were landed? >> i have not received a report on that. when i saw the applications at the outset of the process, many had requested lowell and other schools, but i could get you a report on where they went. >> i would be curious to see where they went. it was unfortunate it what in the second round. >> [speaker not understood]. >> right. >> so, if you could report back to us, that would be good. thank you. >> any other questions or comments from the board? yes. >> follow-up on that. you probably said this, but when they made these requests to sfusd schools, they were just in the line with everybody else, right? >> yes. >> they were not given any priority? >> no, they were just given some assistance to make shareholder they knew where they were in the process. >> they still have that anomaly kind of jumping in at the end is an advantage in a way -- >> actually, it isn't i don't think any more because of the
1:58 pm
spring transfer process. so, any school that is over enrolled has more requests cannot take new people in the process. they go into the wait pool for the spring transfer like everybody else. >> actually, these students are at a disadvantage. they weren't able to engage in round one. so, i think these students at no fault of their own would like to be entered in our public school system noncharter. i feel like there should be some sort of accommodation to try to get those student placed somewhere. ~ students i don't know. but i personally feel like it's not their fault. maybe it's not a special preference, but i would like to know what happened to those students, you know, because they're sort of in limbo. it's no is fault of their own, at another timev >> i think we should find out
1:59 pm
what happened to them. ~ too i don't think i'm in favor of special -- >> any other comments or questions from the board? okay, roll call, please, ms. castro. >> thank you. mr. logan? >> yes. >> ms. fewer? >> yes. >> mr. haney? >> yes. >> ms. maufas? >> yes. >> ms. mendoza? >> yeah. >> dr. murase? >> aye. >> ms. wynns? >> aye. >> and ms. norton? >> yes. >> 7 ayes. >> okay. item r, board members appropriate sail for [speaker not understood] there are none tonight. item s, board members report. commissioner murase, would you give a report from the committee of the whole meeting of june 24th, 2013? >> yes. at the june meeting there was one information item, review discussion of no child left
2:00 pm
behind california office to reform education waiver. and i'm very pleased to report that the waiver was granted by secretary of edward jones indication arney duncan, making us one of the first and only district-level waivers of the no child left behind, which means we no longer have to punish our students in high stakes testing and really impossible score improvements, and that we we're really at the cutting edge of school reform nationally. and i just want to recognize our superintendent, richard carranza, who has been working very closely with superintendent of multiple districts up and down the state. he has really proven to be a leader among these superintendents. i really appreciate you and the whole team of district staff who put together the waiver. >> yes, commissioner wynns.